[Matthew Johnson]
> Or at least didn't block testing migration. I'm happy if porters decide
> my package isn't for them, as long as it doesn't stop it being for
> anyone else either...
I agree. Perhaps a new rule should be introduced, that when a porter
flag a package as NFU on a given architecture, he should be required
to file a removal request for the binaries on that architecture too,
and CC the package maintainer to let the maintainer know about the
decision.
Silently flagging packages as NFU on a given architecture do not seem
like a good idea, and expecting the maintainer to ask for removal
without letting the maintainer know that the porter refuses to build a
given package can only lead to frustration and friction within the
project.
I assume such removal requests can be scripted, to make it easy for
the porter/buildd maintainer to do.
Happy hacking,
--
Petter Reinholdtsen